The following is a guest column offered by Baton Rouge teacher Fred Aldrich who, along with thousands of others, listened Monday as Superintendent of State Police Mike Edmonson appeared on the Jim Engster Show to defend the amendment tacked onto an unrelated bill on the final day of the legislative session which will give Edmonson an additional $55,000 (not $30,000 as first reported—we’ll explain at the end of Aldrich’s guest column) upon his retirement—a nice bonus unique to Edmonson and one other state trooper.

I am a long-time listener to NPR station WRKF, and I listen to the Jim Engster show whenever possible. I don’t always agree with Jim or his guests, but I usually don’t find my disagreements worthy of a response. Today was an exception.

The comments of Jim’s guests are not the opinions of Jim or WRKF, but unfortunately those comments may be spin and/or misinformation which listeners will take as truth.

State Police Superintendent Mike Edmonson was on the show this morning. I have great respect for the state police, and I have considered Edmonson one of the good guys in the Jindal administration. This morning’s interview, however, was problematical for me in several ways.

Engster congratulated Edmonson for having the fortitude to come on the program at a time when the superintendent is facing a lot of heat statewide. His performance suggested that he has paid attention during the years he has also served as a prop for the governor. He sounded earnest, sounded passionate, and sounded determined to serve his troopers and the people of the state. So far, so good, but that’s not why he’s on the hot seat. No one questions his dedication.

As a teacher with 38 years of experience in Louisiana and one who participated in the Deferred Retirement Option Plan (DROP) about the same time as he did, my understanding and experience with the program are much different from what Edmonson expressed on the program. He wanted to dispel “inaccuracies” with “facts,” but in my estimation he mostly promulgated misinformation, to wit:

The retirement systems which offer DROP are not “different” retirement systems than they were at the time he or anyone else went into DROP. DROP was simply a program within these retirement systems which was offered to employees for a few years, theoretically to provide valued employees an opportunity to continue working while putting three years of retirement checks in an interest-earning escrow account that could not be accessed until the employee finally retires, as which time federal laws regarding taxes and withdrawals apply. Though officially retired, the employee continued to draw his regular pay while payments were made into his DROP account. These three years do not count as service credit toward figuring eventual retirement benefits.

Despite Col. Edmonson’s casual use of the word, no one was “forced” into DROP. It was a choice for anyone with 30 years of service, or 25 years of service for those 55 years old or older. Those who chose to not enter DROP simply continued to work, with the three years counted as regular service credit, and allowed the employee to draw the retirement benefits he/she accrued upon final retirement. Had Col. Edmonson, and myself, and others, chosen to not participate, his, and our, retirement benefit would have been what it took him a specious legislative effort to attain.

The form that each DROP participant had to sign made the options and possible outcomes very clear. It states, in no uncertain terms, that the employee understands that his basic retirement benefit is frozen at that time, that the decision is irrevocable, that service credit past the exit from DROP is calculated in a different manner, and that DROP may not be the best option, depending on future circumstances. It urges employees to consider their decision carefully and seek financial counsel before they choose to enter the program.

The articles I’ve read and the radio program in particular fail to mention the three years of retirement pay in Col. Edmonson’s DROP account plus the accrued interest and whether he plans to return that money to the system if he gets his new benefit. In my case, and I was in DROP at the same time as Edmonson, my account balance has nearly doubled in ten years. (And my eventual retirement benefit will be approximately 65% of what it would have been had I not chosen to go into DROP.)

Col. Edmonson misstated the application of the $30,000 yearly bump that has been mentioned. No one I know of has claimed that this is a bonus on top of his new yearly retirement benefit. It is the difference between the benefit that he is entitled to as the result of his voluntary participation in DROP and his new benefit, courtesy of a friendly conference committee.

Blaming the confusion at the end of the legislative session for the “misunderstanding” is ridiculous. It’s beyond obvious that he and his allies (which could range from the governor down to legislative staffers) gamed the system and took advantage of this dysfunctional process for his benefit, then blamed the process for a misunderstanding.

As for the integrity in which Col. Edmonson bathed himself and the commiseration he offered a caller who found herself in a similar retirement situation, he could have demonstrated his concern by including all DROP participants in his legislation. I, and several of my colleagues, (and apparently many others) have tried to lobby for the same remedy that Col. Edmonson and his allies sneaked through (Let’s call it what it is.) We have met the runaround

from every source we’ve approached, and we’ve accepted that most of us will have been long dead before anything actually could be done.

Unfortunately, we’re not in the governor’s loop and teachers with 35-50 years of experience who make less than half the salary of Col. Edmonson don’t have the same voice. His assertion that everyone should get the same consideration that he does begs the fact that all troopers, state workers, and teachers don’t have the same political connections and the same willingness to go through this foul-smelling process to enrich themselves.

This is my understanding based on my experiences with DROP and my following of Edmonson’s gift from the conference committee. If anything is factually incorrect, I will readily stand corrected. As a reaction to what happened, I remain convinced that the whole action smells. There are many hard-working, conscientious, productive people in state government, law enforcement and education, who don’t get special treatment through a disgusting legislative process.

In addition to Mr. Aldrich’s comments, we have some comments and additional information of our own to add:

During his appearance on the Jim Engster Show, Edmonson who last week said he never asked for the legislation and did not know about it, acknowledged that an unidentified” staff member” brought the matter to his attention and he authorized the effort to go forward. He also told Engster that the issue of the special legislation actually arose several weeks before the end of the session.

That being the case, why was it necessary to wait until the last day of the session, when the pace becomes hectic and confusing, to insert the amendment into a benign bill completely unrelated to retirement (the bill, Senate Bill 294, dealt with disciplinary procedures for law enforcement officers under investigation)? That tactic alone smacks of covert intent designed to keep the measure from the prying eyes of the media and public.

Edmonson, during his interview, acknowledged that when he voluntarily (and the word voluntarily should be emphasized here) entered DROP, he was a captain earning $79,000 per year in salary. By entering DROP, his retirement was frozen and would be calculated on that salary. The trade-off was that he earned a higher salary.

But he probably did not foresee his advancement to Superintendent of State Police at a salary of $134,000.

Based on a formula multiplying his salary by the number of years of service by 3.33 percent), he would have retired at 100 percent of that $79,000 salary instead of 100 percent of his higher salary of $134,000 after 30 years.

Until the passage of the secretive-shrouded amendment to SB 294, that is. The amendment will mean an additional $55,000 per year to Edmonson during his retirement years—$134,000 (100 percent of his current salary).

Should Edmonson live for 30 years after retirement, that’s an extra $1.14 million in retirement benefits.

The amendment prompted one retired state trooper, Jerry Patrick, to express his embarrassment “that one of our troopers was so selfish that he would tarnish the badge that I and so many others worked and sacrificed to honor.”

Patrick said that it was “no stretch to believe that the governor’s office was directly involved in requesting this for a member of the governor’s cabinet.”

To that end, LouisianaVoice has made three separate public records requests. The first was to the Louisiana State Police communications director (which was handed off to the agency’s legal team) requesting the opportunity to review “all emails, text messages and/or other communications” between Edmonson, his staff, State Sen. Neil Riser, his staff, and the governor’s office pertaining to any discussion of DROP and/or retirement benefits for Edmonson and any discussion of retirement legislation that might affect Edmonson.

We made similar requests of both the House and Senate for any similar communications between members of the conference committee that approved the special amendment, Edmonson, the governor’s office and Laura Gail Sullivan, legal counsel for the Senate Revenue and Fiscal Affairs Committee. Riser is chairman of that committee and was on the conference committee that inserted the amendment for Edmonson.

Through the grapevine, we have learned that Sullivan has already invoked the sacred attorney-client privilege to prevent releasing any of her emails. But that objection is questionable at best inasmuch as Edmonson is not her client. Neither is the governor. Nor is, for that matter, Riser.

Of course, she will probably include Riser by extension by virtue of his chairmanship of the committee for which she works but Riser, should he have nothing to hide, could always waive the attorney-client privilege.

If he does not, and if Sullivan does resist releasing the contents of her emails, we can only assume the obvious: there is something contained in those messages that the principals would rather we not know.

But we are confident they would never try to hide anything from the public. This administration, after all, is the gold standard of ethics, openness and transparency. Gov. Jindal himself has said so on countless occasions in his many out-of-state appearances.

Oh, but wait. We also learned on Tuesday that House Speaker Chuck Kleckley (R-Lake Charles) has refused a request by State Rep. John Bel Edwards (D-Amite) for a full investigation of the secretive amendment. Kleckley said that because it was a Senate bill to which the amendment was attached, it becomes a matter for the Senate to investigate. Apparently, Kleckley neglected to note that three members of the conference committee that approved the amendment were House members.

Kleckley’s dancing around the issue, folks, is what is known as the Bureaucratic Shuffle.

20 Responses

Per Rep. J.B. Edwards, investigation of this matter now rests with Sen. Alario since bill originated in the Senate, according to Rep. Kleckley’s estimation. Wonder if any investigation will ever be initiated… Jindal’s men aren’t they? Alario and Kleckly?? .. Will have to wait for the LSP Retirement Board report or decision.

Glad you found the video useful, deNeth. Let me present another link readers may find useful. I have been talking with a number of my friends over the last few days, and I’m STUNNED at how many haven’t even heard about this (maybe we need a state law that makes Tom’s blog posts REQUIRED reading ). When they ask, “Can you fill me in?” My first thought is, “You’ve got to be kidding,” but I have given them the low-down verbally. I decided, however, to just send an email with a link. So, I created a webpage which is going to be a chronological outline of events as they transpire. It includes video of the haphazard passing of the amendment on the floor, Tom’s original bombshell post, the LSP Retirement System videos (Treasurer Kennedy), several PRICELESS posts by C. B. Forgotston, audio excerpts from the Jim Engster show, and the most recent video you reference above. I’m going to supply the link now for the benefit of other readers who encounter friends, relatives, etc., who may be clueless about this fiasco. They can then say, “just let me send you an email,” and supply the link. Here it is: http://www.auctioneer-la.org/Kennedy_LSP.htm. The page is going to be kept current going forward, and that will certainly include video from the next LSP Retirement Board meeting. It will likely be the most interesting and scrutinized meeting in that Board’s history!!

I wish I could say that I am not surprised! However, as a somewhat impoverished state retiree, I have seen so much of this unethical behavior–and most of it can be laid on the doorsteps of the mansion. The Jindal administration makes previous governors look like saints.

My real disappointment in all of this debacle is that (he) Edmonson was–I thought–someone who valued his badge and the faith and trust of citizens who honor and support our troopers. He had the opportunity to set a very high standard for his successors, as well as for all our troopers. Now he is unmasked; I hope he likes what he sees. And I hope he respects Jindal–damn few others do.

Prior to retirement, everyone has to sign the waiver if he or she chooses not to enter the DROP program. It is not ambivalent. You understand that choice is irrevocable. In my case, I received a promotion and several raises between the time I declined DROP and my actual retirement date. That was my choice and it proved fortuitous; had that not been the case, I would have had no recourse. Neither do any other retirees.

Shame on Edmonson, shame on Jindal–and shame on the stooges (so-called legislators).

Not only does Sullivan not work for Edmonston, but she might need to consider NOT invoking that privilege. She is employed by the state of Louisiana, which she just conspired to defraud of over a million dollars. As well, an attorney cannot claim privilege for criminal acts or fraud.

Again, an excellent post. Mr. Aldrich presents a compelling look at the situation based on personal experience and knowledge and Tom has added important ancillary information.

Although I have never had a single state employee or retiree (save one, a former legislator intimately familiar with retirement legislation) agree with me, I believe DROP is among our worst financial nightmares. It made some sense when originally conceived and implemented, but it makes little sense now and it costs the state all the way around – not just in retirement costs, but in higher salaries on the active payroll. It is costly and, as evidenced by this immediate case, creates both real and perceived inequities that cannot be remedied via conventional means.

In additional to its original premise to provide an additional benefit to employees, DROP was supposed to ensure retention of an experienced workforce. This sounds good, but, let’s face it, nobody is indispensable. If a person is so valuable that an agency cannot get along without him or her, the agency is very poorly managed, plain and simple.

Here’s a DROP program that makes sense: If the employee chooses to participate s/he signs an irrevocable contract when entering DROP that provides s/he will accrue whatever retirement benefits for which s/he is eligible during the period of participation [this is supposed to be the case now] but then at the end of that period s/he will retire – really retire, collect the DROP account balance plus any investment earnings, and begin to collect the amount that had been going into DROP as a monthly retirement benefit. Not only would the employee not continue employment, but s/he would agree to not get back on the state payroll – ever – adios, sayonara, vaya con dios. This would still be a really good deal for the person participating, would minimize the state’s cost, could actually create jobs, and would not lead to the kind of debacle we see unfolding here.

If you will allow a parallel comment from a teacher of 10 years who’s past a certain age: I opted NOT to go into DROP because my few years teaching would have reduced retirement benefits substantially. All who must rely on the state retirement systems are MANDATED CONTRIBUTORS rather than being allowed to apply monies to Social Security to which employers must also contribute.

For more than 30 years the legislature has refused to pay its fiduciary share into the systems while mismanagement and market forces have combined to destabilize the systems’ foundations. Feigning concern for systems’ solvency the legislature (last year) increased the amount we must pay into the systems while knowing they may become insolvent.

Now we must pay 10% of our salaries (the talking point was “our fair share”), over 2% more than we would to Social Security. Adding insult to injury, the State of Louisiana is one of a minority of states that requires a reduction in Social Security benefits (of up to 2/3) when a worker receives retirement benefits from any of the state systems, EVEN THOUGH OUR SS BENEFITS HAVE ALREADY BEEN EARNED. Supporters of that provision pretended we were unfairly gaming the system.

Robbing workers of duly earned SS benefits and the very real possibility that the retirement systems may soon be insolvent make Edmonson’s and the Jindal Horde’s scam all the more damning. That Jindal is a careless, “upper caste” elitist who fast-talks and lies to fool the electorate is not new or surprising. The surprise would be for the legislators asking for an investigation into the Edmonson scam to actually do more than grandstanding. This means you, Kevin Pearson (R-Slidell).

Since Bush stacked PBS (NPR) with White House staff that network can no longer be trusted for fair and balanced reporting. Like most broadcast media it now has a right wing slant..But it’s worth asking WRKF and Engster to set the record straight.

This was yet another OUTSTANDING post, Tom, and when I heard Jim Engster pin Mike down on what his benefit would have been ($79,000) and what it (for now) will be ($134,000), I figured you’d catch that and make sure the readers knew it was a $55,000 (70%) boost (not $30,000 as first reported)!!! Great job!! One last thing. I think it takes real class to “rise above the fray” and not respond to the lambasting of you and Mr. Forgotston on the program: http://www.auctioneer-la.org/Ed_Forgotston.mp3 . As I relayed to Mr. Forgotston, Col Edmondson paid him the ultimate compliment in making such disparaging remarks. I know you didn’t get individual name recognition, Tom, but trust me, I bet Col. Edmonds hears the words “Tom Aswell” all through the night during his sleep. After all, you very may well have cost him $1.65 million (and BTW, if one uses a 7% rate of return on his annuity, the accumulated amount over that 30 years is as staggering $5,195,343.25!!). Perhaps seeing a number like that will help explain why Treasurer Kennedy relays the bond rating agencies don’t take this “minor” (as Edmondson would excuse it away) addition as trivial in the overall scheme of things. Great job, Tom and Mr. Aldrich!!

Robert, your assumption would require the additional benefit be invested and held for the period which is possible, but not likely to happen. Also, just to clarify, when you look at the actuarial note, it has to presume the amount in DROP reverts to the retirement system for the front load to cost only $300,000 for both troopers. I estimate the amount in Col. Edmonson’s DROP account to be at least $500,000 so the net in additional payments under the amendment over 30 years would be $1.1 million assuming he loses the lump amount in DROP.

An excellent Column and one widely read if my emails are any indication. The suggestion that some rogue State Police “staffer” is responsible for initiating this is beyond my belief. In the past, legislation proposed by the State Police is closely controlled. One control is that proposed legislation for all State Agencies is usually coordinated through the Division of Administration. This ensures prioritization based on overall need. Since Legislators have a set number of bills they can file there are only so many “spots” to go around for the Governor’s office and all State agencies once they file bills on their constituents’ behalf. After that process is completed, prior to when the Legislative Session begins, the main job within State Police as it pertains to legislation is to track and manage (provide information for) any bills they may have offered and were accepted for the Legislative package and to track and manage (provide information for) other Legislation that may be important to or affect the Department. Usually this is coordinated internally by a department Legislative Liaison, who in the recent past has been a Captain or above. In this tightly controlled process, I find it hard to believe that a single “staffer” independently knew of the Colonel’s Retirement situation and took it upon him/herself to initiate legislation to “right the wrong”. Then misinformed the Colonel and independently contacted the Legislature directly by way of the staff attorney who asked no questions as to how it arrived, The staff attorney then independent of any Legislator added this amendment to a bill already in Conference Committee even though the staff attorney knows that all Retirement bills are required by the Louisiana Constitution to be advertised in specific fashion and notice given in advance of the session starting. (Although this was an amendment, the Constitution notes “changes in the law” which this instrument certainly did.) Someone along the way asked for and received fiscal impact information from Hall Actuarial Associates (which I believe is contracted with the State Police Retirement Board) which also found its way into the documents supporting the amendment. Then the staff attorney disguised it so no one would really know its real impact. All of this was done without anyone having a clue what they were doing, including the Governor’s staff. I guess I should add, “And they all lived happily ever after.” I’m sorry, but my brain hurts from even trying to imagine all this. I can imagine a much more reasonable scenario, but that would mean some people are bypassing the truth. It would be interesting to determine if this issue has been raised to the State Police Retirement Board or members by this same administration at any time since 2008?

Jerry, you’ve provided the most insightful insider’s knowledge we could ever hope for. I am going to pose your question to Irwin Felps, Executive Director of the LSP Retirement Board. I have known him almost 30 years, and I’ve found him to always be honest, upfront, and totally transparent. I will report back to you on what he relays to me. Thanks for your extensive knowledge and willingness to share it.

There is certainly a lot of disappointment to go around on this but to lay blame on a staff attorney is wrong. Laura Gail Sullivan is an honest and ethical professional. Senate rules require all staffers to hold in confidence all work product requested by a Senator. Don’t blame for her for doing her job. I fault the Senator and the Administration for their dishonesty and for cowardice in allowing others to take the heat.

Butch, I agree with you. I have worked directly with many of the attorneys for the Senate and the House. I have always, without exception found them to be honest, professional, and helpful. I certainly hope you took my comment to be a journey into the twilight zone. I was showing the ridiculousness of the “story” being provided. Of course Ms. Sullivan wouldn’t act alone. I do hope the reference to Attorney/ Client privilege was a mis-characterization.and what was really meant was that she was following internal rules regarding non-disclosure of who offered the amendment. That can easily be solved by the Senator allowing her to disclose the author. After all, from what I’ve observed, that rule is usually used to protect a constituent from possible retribution for legislation he or she might request. In those cases while the constituent is anonymous, the Legislator offering the Legislation usually isn’t. Seldom has that been used to protect a Senator from the public as it seems in this case. I suggest if all involved from Colonel Edmonson, the Governor’s office, and the Legislature feel they did nothing wrong what’s the harm in laying it all out for the public to see?

Robert, I think you’ll find that 5 of the 11 State Police Retirement Board members are active Troopers. One of these is the Chairman and also President of the Louisiana State Troopers Association. Others include the Commissioner of Administration / Designee, The State Treasurer/ Designee, a Representative from the House Retirement Committee, a Senator from the Senate Retirement Committee. The final two include a Retired Trooper and a Surviving Spouse. I believe regardless of Mr. Kennedy’s declaration that if, after the investigation is complete, he believes it was improper he will vote to take legal action, it will be a hard sell to the Board.

Well, if you’re right, Jerry, any citizen of this state would have standing to file a lawsuit (because of the State having to contribute to the retirement system even though they’ve failed to do so to the tune of a $320M UAL, making the system not nearly as “sound” as Mike portrayed on Engster’s show). If the scenario you describe unfolds, Kennedy looks like the only State official trying to do the right thing, the LSPRB will look HORRIBLY bad (ESPECIALLY the elected officials on the Board), and LSPRB will become one more in a long list of corrupt Boards and Commissions in Louisiana (Auctioneer’s Licensing Board, Interior Design Board, Cosmetology Board, Dentistry Board, ATC Board, just to name a few). I would expect MUCH better from a Board charged with such an awesome responsibility of safeguarding LSP retirement fund assets, so I will be immensely disappointed if the scenario you outline comes to pass, Jerry. At least we will know within the next 60 days or so.

Also, Jerry, I did speak with Irwin today, and he relayed that the two of you spoke last week regarding whether or not the Board had ever discussed this in the past. Irwin told me that you referenced November of 2008. I made a public records request for those minutes, and Irwin got them to me within an hour or so. I have scanned the relevant except into PDF (LSPRB takes extensively-detailed minutes, which is GOOD). I’ve also highlighted what I consider the most relevant text because the minutes are VERY detailed. I also placed hand-written notations out to the side so folk can get quicker analysis without getting bogged down with grinding detail. Interestingly enough, I guess Mike can’t be faulted for using the word “forced” into drop because Charles Hall, the actuary, actually used those very words (quite irresponsibly in my opinion). I think you’ll find the reading VERY interesting, PARTICULARLY the response Mr. Hall gave when a board member asked, “Should a trooper join DROP or not?” Now, Edmondson was in the room to hear the response, and I have no doubt that, based on what he heard, he’s wanted OUT of DROP ever since. Here’s the link to read the material: http://www.auctioneer-la.org/LSP1108.pdf.

We’ve been contacting former Board members in an attempt to narrow down our request but also ensure we didn’t miss anything by doing so. Some former board members are reluctant to discuss it openly because most are now in other State appointed positions. Good work on what you got. We were reasonably certain it had already been discussed with individual board members to attempt to garner support for the change SB 294 effected. It appears the Department, the Governor’s office, and the Legislative strategy going forward is standard practice. Let the story drift from the always changing news cycle so it is relegated to less publicly viewed sources. The pressure for officials to address it is reduced and when/ if their stories start unraveling and the “mainstream” media doesn’t pick it back up. There’s less public pressure to address it thenand they have weathered the storm. The Department will eventually honor the public records requests but they will either drag it out or mitigate it by supplying some, arguing others, and look to tread water to “run the ckock out”. They will note all the trouble involved, how extensive the scope of the request is, and how much manpower (cost) is involved with complying. Often they spend more manhours with that than it sometimes takes to comply. I don’t know the response as to whether you would have standing or not in the courts. You would think logically that any citizen has an interest when their Legislature passes what I believe only a partisan could argue is not an unconstitutional law. Additionally the unfunded liability impacts and threatens every citizen. But to say how a judge might view it, who knows? Thanks for your and others’ continued efforts to bring out the truth and protect the citizens of Louisiana from these types of corrupt practices. It is revealing that Edmonson has characterized it as standard practice. If you need anything further ket me know. You can easily contact me through my Facebook page.

I did note that–earlier this week–Channel 9 had an editorial comment in opposition to this. That is the only thing I have heard/seen from our local (supposedly unbiased) media. BR Business Report is, as usual, gutless.

I looked over the minutes and found nothing provided by the Actuarial representative or Attorney inconsistent with the standard practices or the law. The terminology of being “forced into the DROP” simply relates to a time frame where you have to make a decision to either enter it or not. No one I have ever spoken to understood that any other way. At a particular point either by age or by years of service, if you intended to enter the DROP at all, you were forced to do it then. As I’ve said before, many chose not to. Some guys/ladies were drawn by the lump sum, others didn’t want to take the chance. If someone chose to enter the DROP, they were counseled by the Retirement Board Chairman and provided detailed information. They were encouraged to contact their financial planner and consult with their spouse/.families. A contract is signed.

On another note Lee Zurik, a very talented and intelligent Investigative Reporter for Fox 8 News in New Orleans, is supposed to begin a series on this tonight at 10:00 pm.

Email Subscription

Like what you read here? Send a free subscription to a friend or subscribe for yourself. Type in his/her email address in the square below and then click on “Sign me up!”

Join 3,408 other followers

Donate!

LouisianaVoice does not accept advertising because we insist on an independent voice. Likewise, we do not charge a subscription fee for our blog.
That is not to say we do not have expenses—lots of them. Moreover, we would love to add a reporter to provide even better coverage of the underbelly of Louisiana politics.
Your contribution would help us immensely in meeting our growing expenses. Simply click on the “Donate” button here and contribute whatever you feel appropriate.
Thank you.
Tom Aswell, Publisher

Got a tip?

Got a news lead for LouisianaVoice to investigate? Have a suggestion for a story? Your identity will never be revealed. Just send an email to louisianavoice@cox.net